ORELLANA v. MALEK

Order affirmed, with costs.

It was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to order substitution. Appellant's motion to dismiss was made within a year of the plaintiff's death and within six months of the appointment of an administratrix (see, Rosenfeld v Hotel Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 25, 29). Furthermore, in the absence of a showing of prejudice to appellant, or placement upon the Trial Calendar, dismissal for failure to substitute in an action which had been pending for only about a year at the time the motion to dismiss was made was not warranted (see, Almo Serv. v Weisskopf, 58 A.D.2d 550; cf. Meier v Schively, 10 A.D.2d 566; Ruderman v Feffer, 10 A.D.2d 704; Hemphill v Rock, 87 A.D.2d 836). Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.